[cicus]

The other day I played in a tournament using a Full Disclosure convention card. We had a sequence of which all bids were artificial. We alerted them all but the opponents seemed not to know how to learn the meanings of the bids because I was asked to give an explanation over and over again. I told them to put their mouse over the bid but one of the opponents did not seem to understand. After my second bid there was a 5-minute (!) pause by LHO and when I asked him to bid he told me he was calling the director. He did not tell me why but I suspect it was because of my "denial" to provide explanation (I myself could see my own explanationns all the time). Nothing happened but finally he passed and there were further 2 or 3 rounds of bidding. However, time ran out and there was no time for even the opening lead. It came as a surprise that the TD awarded -3 IMPs for us. This was actually a gain of 3 IMPs because we missed a laydown slam.

That was long enough. I see two problems here:

(1) Many players don't know how to use the new FD feature. This causes a lot of headache for me, having to explain the meanings of bids or teaching the opponents how to use the FD feature. I hate this because I have spent several *days* completing our FD card and it causes more trouble than advantage.
(2) It seem average minus is automatically awarded for the side on bid or play, no matter who is guilty.

Gabor Szots

[inquiry]

The director probably didn't award you -3, the software did. Playing imps, both pairs automatically get -3 imps for an unfinished board. The director could have awarded you anything from average minus (-3) to average (0)to average plus (+3) or assigned a score (4H= or 4S+2) etc.

[barmar]

In f2f bridge, if an opponent asks for an explanation of a bid, you're expected to answer, not just refer them to your convention card, no matter how detailed it is. I think the same goes for online bridge -- the opponents are not required to read the automated FD explanations (some of the terminology in there is pretty cryptic -- I'm not sure what the dots in the little diagram mean) if they prefer prose.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on Jul 5 2006, 06:58 PM, said:

In f2f bridge, if an opponent asks for an explanation of a bid, you're expected to answer, not just refer them to your convention card, no matter how detailed it is.  I think the same goes for online bridge -- the opponents are not required to read the automated FD explanations (some of the terminology in there is pretty cryptic -- I'm not sure what the dots in the little diagram mean) if they prefer prose.

I disagree pretty strongly

Players have a responsibility to be conversant in the lingua franca of the playing environment. For example, WBF events all use english as the official language. If you have 4 Poles playing against one another in a WBF event, they are expected to use english to describe their alerts and explanations. Furthermore, they can be punished if thay are unable to provide adequate explanations in a language that is foreign to them. (I can track down WBF appeals that hinged on the quality of a description made in English at a table where all the players were native German speakers)

The regulators made a concious decision its necessary for players to invest time and effort learning to use a new communication mechanism.

I feel that the exact same principle applies here. The FD system is a very strong tool to provide the opponents with an accurate description regarding partnership agreements. If a pair posts a valid/accurate FD card this should be considered adequate disclosure. I have very little sympathy for pairs who are too lazy to learn to use the system.

[barmar]

Unless something has changed recently, FD is NOT the lingua franca of BBO yet, so your analogy is flawed. No one here is required to speak FD in the way that WBF requires everyone to speak English. FD is an optional tool that you can use, but your opponents are not forced to rely on it.

Like I said, it's like a printed convention card. If someone asked you for an explanation of your bid, and you handed them your CC instead of answering, I think you would be violating regulations in many jurisdictions (I'm pretty sure this is the case in ACBL territory).

[hrothgar]

barmar, on Jul 5 2006, 07:29 PM, said:

Unless something has changed recently, FD is NOT the lingua franca of BBO yet, so your analogy is flawed.  No one here is required to speak FD in the way that WBF requires everyone to speak English.  FD is an optional tool that you can use, but your opponents are not forced to rely on it.

Like I said, it's like a printed convention card.  If someone asked you for an explanation of your bid, and you handed them your CC instead of answering, I think you would be violating regulations in many jurisdictions (I'm pretty sure this is the case in ACBL territory).

No one here is required to do a thing...
BBO doesn't really set any policies in these areas beyond "play nice".

One can argue what play nice means in this arena. Some might argue that refusing to explain your bids isn't playing nice. I say that expecting the world to bend over and cater to your demands because your too lazy to learn something new isn't particularly nice.

Regardless, specific regulations are left to the descretion of individual sponsoring authories. From my perspective sponsoring authorites should migrate towards using FD.

As to the ACBL example:

NEarly everyone playing in ACBL tournaments speaks pretty fluent English. One of the main reasons for developing the FD application was to provide a simple, unamibiguous system for disclosure that would work in multi-linqual environment where people have 1001 ideas about what constitutes standard.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on Jul 5 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

Regardless, specific regulations are left to the descretion of individual sponsoring authories. From my perspective sponsoring authorites should migrate towards using FD.

If they want to do that, it's their right. AFAIK, none of the BBO tourneys have gone that way, and players cannot demand it on their own.

[david_c]

barmar, on Jul 5 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

In f2f bridge, if an opponent asks for an explanation of a bid, you're expected to answer, not just refer them to your convention card, no matter how detailed it is.  I think the same goes for online bridge -- the opponents are not required to read the automated FD explanations (some of the terminology in there is pretty cryptic -- I'm not sure what the dots in the little diagram mean) if they prefer prose.

Well, hang on. If an opponent asks a question like, "what would [some other bid] have meant there?" then they should be entitled to a human explanation rather than having to wade through the FD file to find out. Fine. But why should you have to repeat an explanation which they can already see on their screen?

Sure, if they say they don't understand, or if they want to ask a specific question, then you have to give a written reply. But if they're just clicking on the bid to ask, I think anything more than "see above" is ridiculous. (Perhaps followed by "what else would you like to know?" in private chat.)

[cicus]

barmar, on Jul 5 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

Unless something has changed recently, FD is NOT the lingua franca of BBO yet, so your analogy is flawed. No one here is required to speak FD in the way that WBF requires everyone to speak English. FD is an optional tool that you can use, but your opponents are not forced to rely on it.

Like I said, it's like a printed convention card. If someone asked you for an explanation of your bid, and you handed them your CC instead of answering, I think you would be violating regulations in many jurisdictions (I'm pretty sure this is the case in ACBL territory).

The way of using the FD convention cards for explanation of bids is practically identical with the way you answer alerts. With the conventional method, you alert and write your explanation in the provided field. With FD, you alert and the provided field is filled in automatically for you. The only difference is that the use of FD is faster, the explanations are more detailed and accurate. This should be the preferred method. I don't see why I am encouraged to create a comprehensive FD CC (I assure you, ours is extremely thorough, we've received a lot of admiration for it from various opponents. I've put a lot of work in it.) if I am still required to explain "verbally".

Gabor

[luke warm]

this kind of thing has happened before... i know bbo is loathe to interfere, but it seems to me that contacting tds and making one statement, such as "players can't be punished for using FD" ought to do it...

[uday]

Of course it is nutty to insist that the user type out what is already on the screen. Of course, the FD explanation doesnt take away the need to explain further if the opp needs more of an explanation.

FD explanations can be disabled, but the person who disables them bears the risk of missing an "alert"

Should the FD popup replace the alert procedure? For ACBL games, we still ask users to click ALERT if the bid is alertable in ACBL-land. Not clear that we have a choice here.

For non-acbl tourneys, I think it is pointless to alert something (even a transfer) if the bid is clearly described as a transfer in FD, and I won't insist that this happens. As always, we'll leave this for the tourney host to decide.

I'm trying to avoid carrying over the real-world alerting mess into our online world. Not sure how we'll do this, but the solution surely isnt to merge a bunch of existing messes into a larger mess.

[DrTodd13]

If a user A has alerted a bid and there is a FD explanation for that bid and opponent B still clicks on the bid then can we make the software provide an explanation to B in his own language of how to see the FD explanation? I use FD frequently and find many people who have this problem. They can click on the bid so fast and move their mouse that they never notice something flash in the top-right hand corner providing an explanation.

Another problem I've had is that an opp makes a bid and I click on it asking for an explanation but the opp gives an incomplete explanation. For example, they might describe shape but not strength or vice versa. If I click on the bid again, they inevitably continue to give the same incomplete explanation. If I send them a private message asking for an explanation then they know who is asking for information which, IMO, should be UI to them. I'd like there to be a way to anonymously ask them a question.

[kfgauss]

DrTodd13, on Jul 5 2006, 09:56 PM, said:

Another problem I've had is that an opp makes a bid and I click on it asking for an explanation but the opp gives an incomplete explanation. For example, they might describe shape but not strength or vice versa. If I click on the bid again, they inevitably continue to give the same incomplete explanation. If I send them a private message asking for an explanation then they know who is asking for information which, IMO, should be UI to them. I'd like there to be a way to anonymously ask them a question.

There are issues with clicking on the bid too -- then your partner has UI that you asked a question. (I suppose if you click on it instantly then your partner won't know whether the explanation was given in response to a request or not.)

Anyways, in f2f bridge you can't hide who's asking the question from the opponents, but e.g. behind screens partner won't know when you're asking a question (and without screens, the fact that you asked is UI).

Andy

[matmat]

another (somewhat unlikely) possibility is that it was someone using a fairly old version of the BBO software that does not support FD.

[barmar]

DrTodd13, on Jul 5 2006, 05:56 PM, said:

If I send them a private message asking for an explanation then they know who is asking for information which, IMO, should be UI to them. I'd like there to be a way to anonymously ask them a question.

I don't think there's anything in the Laws that justifies the opinion that the identity of who asks a question is UI to the opponents. Questions (but not their answers) are only UI to partner.

[matmat]

barmar, on Jul 6 2006, 05:19 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Jul 5 2006, 05:56 PM, said:

If I send them a private message asking for an explanation then they know who is asking for information which, IMO, should be UI to them.  I'd like there to be a way to anonymously ask them a question.

I don't think there's anything in the Laws that justifies the opinion that the identity of who asks a question is UI to the opponents. Questions (but not their answers) are only UI to partner.

unfortunately answers very often betray the question.

[barmar]

matmat, on Jul 6 2006, 11:53 PM, said:

unfortunately answers very often betray the question.

So? Sometimes UI is unavoidable. If you need to know the answer to a question, you should not let the fact that it gives your partner UI stop you from asking. Similarly, while you're suppose to try to maintain an even tempo, sometimes you really do need to think a while about a bid or play.

It's partner's responsibility to avoid taking advantage of the UI. Technical measures like screens, online self-alerts, and Full Disclosure can reduce UI and MI, but they don't eliminate them completely (e.g. screens are supposed to make it difficult to tell whether it was partner or an opponent who hesitated during the auction, but if the opponents have been silent throughout the auction it was almost surely partner).

[ducky_rh]

The other day, in a tournament, my RHO opened and passed, as did I, and LHO bid ONE CLUB. My partner passed, and RHO bid ONE HEART, whereupon an FD window popped up and said "Forcing", even though, in standard bidding, a passed hand cannot force anything. I passed, and LHO PASSED the "forcing" bid.

FD is frequently (almost always) inaccurate, incomplete, vague, misleading, or all of the above, and I do not blame any average player for ignoring it and asking for an explanation they can understand. The reason people ask multiple times is that explanations given are often flippant, arrogant, and obviously incomplete, and there is no other way to ask for more information than to click on the bid again.

Providing an arcane definition of one bid without a complete overview of the system being employed is no help whatsoever. Under the time constraints of tournament play, one cannot delve deeply into the thicket of FD to try to determine what the bid means, and often more importantly, what the failure to make other bids also means.

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on Jul 25 2006, 07:59 PM, said:

The other day, in a tournament, my RHO opened and passed, as did I, and LHO bid ONE CLUB. My partner passed, and RHO bid ONE HEART, whereupon an FD window popped up and said "Forcing", even though, in standard bidding, a passed hand cannot force anything. I passed, and LHO PASSED the "forcing" bid.

FD is frequently (almost always) inaccurate, incomplete, vague, misleading, or all of the above, and I do not blame any average player for ignoring it and asking for an explanation they can understand. The reason people ask multiple times is that explanations given are often flippant, arrogant, and obviously incomplete, and there is no other way to ask for more information than to click on the bid again.

Providing an arcane definition of one bid without a complete overview of the system being employed is no help whatsoever. Under the time constraints of tournament play, one cannot delve deeply into the thicket of FD to try to determine what the bid means, and often more importantly, what the failure to make other bids also means.

There is an old expression: "Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools"

I'm sorry that you received misinformation from the opponent's Full Disclosure file. If you could demonstrate that you were damaged by the misinformation, you would be entitled to an adjusted score. I'd even go so far as to argue that the opponents might deserve a proceedural penalty for providing an inaccurate convention file. At the very least, there should be some way to inform the opponents that their FD file is providing innacurate information.

With this said and done, the problem rests with the opponents, not the application. Case in point, the Full Disclosure file that documents "BBO Advanced" clearly differentiates between 1m openings in first/second seat and 1m opening in 3rd/4th seat. In a startling development, 1M responses to 3rd/4th seat 1m openings are labeled as non-forcing, while 1M responses to 1st/2nd seat openings are described as forcing.

[jillybean]

Some partnerships have hopelessly inaccurate FD files or fail to disable FD after a sub is put in, this does create a mis information nightmare and detracts from the game. FD shouldnt be used as excuse when there is MI, set it up and use it correctly or turn it off.

Allowing the TD more control of FD would be very useful, at the moment the TD cannot easily tell who is using FD and has no control over it. Having the option to disable partner notification of the alert and description and the ability to disable FD on a pair by pair basis would be very helpful.

The FD 'alert' is also missing and the the explanation appears at the top/right of screen rather than in the bidding box - some players miss alerts altogether.

jb